Surveillance of psoriatic patients on biologic treatment during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A single‐center experience

There are few studies on how patients with psoriasis who are on biologic therapy are affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. We analyzed the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on patients with psoriasis receiving biologic therapy, patients' current status at a single center in Turkey. A total of 133 patients (mean age; 44.6 ± 13.5 years) were on maintenance biological treatment for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis during the pandemic. A standardized questionnaire was administered by phone interviews to determine patients' perceptions, attitudes, and adherence to therapy and identify the frequency of COVID‐19 infection, psoriasis status, and new comorbidities during the pandemic. All patients had been receiving a biological agent including ustekinumab, etanercept, adalimumab, secukinumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, or certolizumab pegol. Ninety‐one patients (68.4%) had at least one comorbid condition, including psoriatic arthritis (35.3%), hypertension (19.5%), diabetes mellitus (16.5%), obesity, coronary artery disease, and dyslipidemia. During the first 3 months of the pandemic, 52 patients (39%) suspended their biological therapies for short (n = 33) or long (n = 19) periods without medical advice for reasons of fear, worry, and anxiety. All but one patient restarted their medications as a result of therapeutic counseling. Five patients reported suspicious symptoms, but only one had PCR‐confirmed COVID‐19. Our findings suggest that biologic treatment for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis would not pose an additional risk for COVID‐19 infection and its life‐threatening complications, even in the presence of a high frequency of cardiometabolic comorbidities, provided that all patients are informed and necessary pandemic‐directed precautions are well adopted by the patients.     

COVID‐19 knowledge prevents biologics discontinuation: Data from an Italian multicenter survey during RED‐ZONE declaration

SARS‐CoV‐2 become pandemics and there is still a dearth of data about its the potentially among dermatological patients under biologics. We aimed to assess health literacy, disease knowledge, treatment dissatisfaction and biologics attitudes toward COVID‐19. We performed a cross‐sectional, questionnaire‐based survey on 98/105 consecutive dermatological patients treated with biologics—51 suffering from plaque psoriasis, 22 from atopic dermatitis, and 25 from hidradenitis suppurativa. An ad hoc, validated questionnaire has 44 items investigating the following domains: knowledge of COVID‐19 related to (a) epidemiology, (b) pathogenesis, (c) clinical symptoms, (d) preventive measures, and (e) attitudes. Patients data and questionnaires were collected. Despite only 8.1% thought that biologics may increase the risk of COVID‐19, 18.4% and 21.4% of the patients were evaluating the possibility to discontinue or modify the dosage of the current biologic therapy, respectively. Globally, male patients (P = .001) with higher scholarity level (P = .005) displayed higher knowledge of COVID‐19. Patients with lower DLQI (P = .006), longer disease duration (P = .051) and lower scholarity (P = .007) have thought to discontinue/modify autonomously their biologic therapy. At the multivariate logistic regression, only the knowledge of epidemiology and preventive measures resulted independent predictors of continuation vs discontinuation and modification vs no modification, respectively. Dermatologists should promote COVID‐19 knowledge to prevent biologics disruption.     

Dermatologic comorbidities of the patients with severe COVID‐19: A case‐control study

The current studies focus on the association between COVID‐19 and certain comorbidities. To the best of our knowledge, the association between severe COVID‐19 and dermatologic comorbidities has not been reported yet. In this study, we aimed to describe the dermatologic comorbidities of patients with severe COVID‐19 and compare it with the control group. Patients who have died at U?ak Training and Research Hospital due to COVID‐19 and other diseases in the COVID‐19 Intensive Care Units and Internal Medicine Intensive Care Units were recruited into the study. Two groups were compared with each other regarding the most common dermatologic comorbidities. A total of 198 patients including 111 patients with COVID‐19 and 87 age and sex‐matched patients with other diseases were enrolled in the study. The most common dermatologic comorbidities were pruritus (8.1%), eczema (6.3%), skin infections (3.6%), leukocytoclastic vasculitis (1.8%), and urticaria (0.9%) in the COVID‐19 group while they were skin infections (9.2%), eczema (3.4%), pruritus (2.3%), and urticaria (1.1%) in the control group. None of patients in the control group had leukocytoclastic vasculitis. There were no significant differences between COVID‐19 and control groups in terms of pruritus, eczema, skin infections, and urticaria (P values were .117, .517, .181, .505, and 1.000, respectively). In conclusion, although it is not statistically significant, it appears that pruritus and leukocytoclastic vasculitis are more common in severe COVID‐19 patients. These cytokines‐related diseases in the immuno‐cutaneous systems may give some clues on the COVID‐19 severity. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between the immuno‐cutaneous system and COVID‐19 severity.     

Chilblains‐like lesions and SARS‐CoV‐2 in children: An overview in therapeutic approach

SARS‐CoV‐2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Coronavirus, type 2) is the virus responsible for the global pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) that began in China in December 2019. The variability of nasal olfactory symptoms in pediatric patients is interlinked with possible warning signs, including respiratory, gastrointestinal, ocular, or dermatological symptoms. Skin findings in patients with COVID‐19 can range from petechiae to papulovesicular rashes to diffuse urticaria and can be confused with rashes of non‐COVID‐19 conditions. These lesions typically appear early during COVID‐19 and are thought to be secondary to viral replication or circulating cytokines. Herein, we discuss two pediatric cases, presenting with skin lesions, which tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2, thus, briefly reviewing current literature for similar reports and related management. Although these lesions heal spontaneously in most cases, an adequate “targeted” therapeutic approach can shorten the time and the discomfort of the skin disease.     

Treatment considerations for Behçet disease in the era of COVID‐19: A narrative review

COVID‐19 is a multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. It has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020 and the outbreak still keeps its impacts worldwide. Behçet disease (BD) is a multi‐systemic vasculitis involving the skin, mucosa, eyes, joints, nervous system, cardiovascular system, and gastrointestinal system. The precise etiopathogenesis of the disorder is unknown but autoimmunity is believed to play a key role. A considerable part of patients with BD are susceptible to immunosuppression and are more predisposed to infections than healthy individuals. Hence, the protection and control measures for patients with BD against the COVID‐19 are of the utmost significance. Given the requirement to balance proper treatment of BD with the smallest risk of COVID‐19 associated mortality and morbidity, we aimed to review the management of BD in the era of the pandemic with a special focus on treatment considerations. According to current expert recommendations, there is no reason to discontinue topical treatments, colchicine, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Systemic steroids can be used at the lowest possible dose if needed. Ongoing treatments can be continued unchanged in patients with no suspected or confirmed COVID‐19. In cases with COVID‐19 symptoms, immunosuppressive and biological agents can be temporarily stopped but the decision should be made on a case by case basis. Considering their potential beneficial effects on the course of COVID‐19, colchicine, pentoxifylline, and dapsone can be considered as safe treatment options in BD.     

Management of urticaria in COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review

The global pandemic COVID‐19 has resulted in significant global morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare demands. There is now emerging evidence of patients experiencing urticaria. We sought to systematically review current evidence, critique the literature, and present our findings. Allowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was carried out with Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, using key MeSH words, which include “COVID‐19,” “Coronavirus,” “SARS‐Cov‐2,” “Urticaria,” “Angioedema,” and “Skin rash” up to 01 August 2020. The key inclusion criteria were articles that reported on urticaria and/or angioedema due to COVID‐19 infection and reported management and outcome. Studies were excluded if no case or cohort outcomes were observed. Our search returned 169 articles, 25 of which met inclusion criteria. All studies were case reports, reporting 26 patients with urticaria and/or angioedema, COVID‐19 infection and their management and/or response. ajority of patients (n = 16, 69%) were over 50 years old. However, urticaria in the younger ages was not uncommon, with reported case of 2 months old infant. Skin lesions resolved from less than 24 hours to up to 2 weeks following treatment with antihistamines and/or steroids. There have been no cases of recurrent urticaria or cases nonresponsive to steroids. Management of urticarial in COVID‐19 patients should involve antihistamines. Low dose prednisolone should be considered on an individualized basis. Further research is required in understanding urticarial pathogenesis in COVID‐19. This will aid early diagnostic assessment in patients with high index of suspicion and subsequent management in the acute phase.     

The impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on the management of patients with chronic urticaria: An observational two‐center study from Turkey

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) outbreak significantly affected the clinical practice in hospitals and the management of many diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pandemic‐related factors on the severity and course of chronic urticaria (CU). A total of 194 CU patients who were on regular follow‐up, were enrolled in the study. The disease activity was assessed by means of the weekly urticaria activity score (UAS7) and urticaria control test (UCT). Patients were divided into two subgroups according to their disease aggravation as “aggravated” and “non‐aggravated”. Two groups were compared in terms of demographic, clinical, COVID‐19‐associated parameters, and parameters related with the effect of COVID‐19 pandemic on CU management. The omalizumab use was statistically higher (P = .017), and the systemic corticosteroid use was statistically lower (P = .025) in the “aggravated” group. Adherence to quarantine was significantly lower in the “aggravated” group (P = .027). 173 patients (89.2%) were unable to contact a dermatologist during the pandemic. Among 186 patients who received treatment for CU before the pandemic, 48 (25.8%) did not continue the existing treatment during the pandemic. CU aggravated in one patient with COVID‐19 and remained stable in the other. This study showed that CU patients, especially those on omalizumab therapy, had difficulties in attending medical care and even in the maintenance of their existing therapies during the pandemic. Creating novel follow‐up and treatment models as well as the increased use of teledermatology might be beneficial in the management of this life‐disturbing condition.     

The impact of COVID‐19 in patients with psoriasis: A multicenter study in Istanbul

There is widespread concern about treatment of psoriasis in COVID‐19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the epidemiological data, clinical characteristics, treatment features of the psoriasis patients during the pandemic period. We conducted a study in dermatology clinics of seven different tertiary centers. All adult psoriasis patients who were followed up between 11 March 2020 and 28 June 2020, were phone called or questioned in their visit to their follow‐up clinics. A semistructured questionnaire was applied and patients' demographics and disease characteristics were recorded. Of 1322 patients, 52.4% were male, and 47.6% were female. According to the questionnaire responses, 964 (72.9%) of these patients could not communicate with their physician during this period, remained 358 (27.1%) patients contacted the physician by phone, email, or hospital visit. From the patients diagnosed as probable/confirmed COVID‐19, 14 were female, and 9 were male. Nine of 23 (39.1%) patients were using biologic treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of hospitalization from COVID‐19 between the patients using biologics (n = 9) and those who did not (n = 14) (P = 1.00). No mortality was observed among them. Obesity, smoking, age, and accompanying psoriatic arthritis were not among the risk factors affecting the frequency of COVID‐19. We only encountered an increased risk in diabetic patients. Also, an exacerbation of psoriasis was observed with the infection. No difference was found in patients with psoriasis in terms of COVID‐19 infection in patients who use biologics and those who don't.     

Rituximab as the treatment of pemphigus vulgaris in the COVID‐19 pandemic era: A narrative review

Pemphigus vulgaris (PV), an autoimmune blistering disease is treated with immunosuppressive medications. As the immunosuppressive effect of rituximab, the first‐line therapy of PV, lasts more than 6 months, many concerns have raised due to the ongoing novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) pandemic. With this background, our objective was to review the currently available literature as well as important websites for the evidence related to rituximab, PV and COVID‐19, adverse effects associated with drugs, and relevant guidelines. “PubMed” and “Google Scholar” database were systematically searched for retrieving all articles related to anti‐CD20 therapy in pemphigus vulgaris and COVID‐19 published up to 14 July 2020. A total of seven clinical studies are performed with anti‐CD20 therapy in COVID‐19, three of which are performed on pemphigus patients, and have shown concerns employing rituximab in patients with COVID‐19. Evidence for treating PV patients with rituximab in COVID‐19 pandemic is limited. Until sufficient evidence or guideline for pemphigus and COVID‐19 treatment is available, we advocate caution commencing rituximab in patients with pemphigus, due to the reported adverse outcomes.     

Six months into the pandemic. A review of skin manifestations in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, various cutaneous manifestations have been described as associated with SARS‐CoV2 infection. It is debated if skin lesions could represent a diagnostic or prognostic indicator. Specifically, it is unclear whether skin lesions may be used to perform an early diagnosis and/or to predict worse outcomes. In this review, we described the cutaneous signs so far reported as COVID‐19‐related and discussed their incidence, clinico‐pathological features, and diagnostic and prognostic value.     

Cutaneous manifestations of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19): A brief review

COVID‐19, first appeared in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has been spreading quickly throughout the world. We reviewed the evidence on cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19 based on PubMed database. The searching strategy was (COVID* or coronavirus*) and (dermatol* or skin* or cutaneous*). The publication time was limited to 2019 onward. After independent review by two authors, 14 studies with 228 confirmed cases were included in the analysis. A total of 60 patients developed skin rashes, and the age ranged from 8 to 84. Exanthematous eruptions potentially related to COVID‐19 infection were highly variable and heterogeneous. Skin lesions mainly appeared erythematous, urticarial, and vesicular (chicken pox‐like or varicelliform). Petechiae rash, livedo reticularis, and reactivation of oral HSV‐1 were also observed in single cases. Newly reported eruptions like vascular lesions and peculiar (perniosis‐like) skin lesions caused concern among dermatologists. Exanthems were widely distributed and were primarily located on the trunk. Associated symptoms, latency time, treatment, and prognosis were also carefully summarized. This study reviewed the recently published COVID‐19 studies with skin manifestations, which may pave the way for further research.     

COVID‐19 from the perspective of dentists: A case report and brief review of more than 170 cases

A novel coronavirus which has appeared from China, has been circulating hastily around the world. We summarized the publications including oral manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases based on PubMed and Google Scholar data bases, and also present a case that highlights oral lesions 2 days prior to the first COVID‐19 general symptoms. Two authors independently reviewed the papers, 17 studies of more than 170 confirmed cases between ages of 9 and 90 were included. The most common oral manifestation was dry mouth followed by dysgeusia and pseudomembranous fungal structure. Change in tongue sensation and ulceration, muscle pain during mastication, swelling in oral cavity, and herpetic lesions were other common symptoms. Associated symptoms, latency time, treatment, and prognosis have also been meticulously reviewed. We hope that careful clinical intraoral examination on all COVID‐19 positive patients and equally on any patients who need dental care will pave the way for further studies.     

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and neurodegenerative disorders

During the last few months, the whole humanity is experiencing largest and most severe sudden influx of COVID‐19 outbreak caused by the novel coronavirus (CoV) originated from Wuhan, China. According to the WHO reports, total 3 862 676 positive cases and 265 961 deaths have been recorded worldwide due to COVID‐19 infection as of May 9, 2020. CoVs are a large family of viruses (enveloped, single‐stranded RNA viruses), which includes severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome‐related coronavirus (MERS‐CoV). New SARS CoV2 is the members of Betacoronavirus genus. These viruses cause infections in bats, camels and humans, and a few other associated species. Despite many neurologic complications associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, it is still unclear whether these symptoms results from direct neural injury or due to some other reason. Currently, it appears that most of the neurological symptoms of COVID‐19 are nonspecific and secondary to the systemic illness. A single case of acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy has been reported. SARS‐CoV‐2 associated Guillain‐Barré syndrome is an atypical case. Till today, no convincing evidence is available to confirm that the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus directly affects nerves system in humans. However, postinfection surveillance will be necessary to identify the possible post‐COVID‐19 neurologic syndromes.     

Dermatological diseases presented before COVID‐19: Are patients with psoriasis and superficial fungal infections more vulnerable to the COVID‐19?

Recent studies have focused on the comorbid conditions of the COVID‐19. According to the current studies, numerous diseases including lung disease, cardiovascular disease and immunosuppression appear to be at higher risk for severe forms of the COVID‐19. To date, there are no data in the literature on the comorbid dermatologic diseases and COVID‐19. We tried to analyze the previous dermatological comorbidity of 93 patients with COVID‐19 (51 males, 42 females) who presented to the dermatology outpatient clinics for the last 3 years. The most common dermatologic diseases in patients with COVID‐19 who have dermatologic diseases for the last 3 years were superficial fungal infections (24, 25.8%), seborrheic dermatitis (11, 11.8%), actinic keratosis (10, 10.8%), psoriasis (6, 6.5%), and eczema (6, 6.5%), respectively. In addition, the number of COVID‐19 patients who presented to dermatology in the last 3 months was 17 (11 men, 6 women). The median age of these patients was 58 (minimum 18, maximum 80) years, and the most common dermatologic diseases before diagnosed COVID‐19 were superficial fungal infections (5, 25%), psoriasis (4, 20%), and viral skin diseases (3, 15%). The possible similarity between cutaneous and mucosal immunity and immunosuppression suggests that patients with some dermatologic diseases especially superficial fungal infections and psoriasis may be more vulnerable to the COVID‐19.     

Immunosuppressive drugs for patients with psoriasis during the COVID‐19 pandemic era. A review

The COVID‐19 has been spreading around the world. Concerns about the safety of administration of immunosuppressive drugs have been raised for treatment of psoriasis (PSO), and there is insufficient evidence for the risk of COVID‐19 infection for psoriatic patients using these drugs, so we did a review, focusing on the risk of overall infection associated with the most commonly used immunosuppressive drugs, such as methotrexate, biologics, cyclosporin, Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of PSO. The data on the effect of immunosuppressive drugs on this virus may be ever‐changing and remains to be clear. We recommend the initiation and continuation of low‐risk immunomodulating drugs, such as Interleukin (IL)‐17, IL‐12/23, and IL‐23 inhibitors, for treatment of PSO during COVID‐19 era. For psoriatic patients with comorbidities switching to safer modalities such as systemic retinoids, apremilast, and home phototherapy is recommended. Immunosuppressive drugs should be withheld in psoriatic patients with the COVID‐19 infection.     

Change of the diagnostic distribution in applicants to dermatology after COVID‐19 pandemic: What it whispers to us?

We aim to evaluate the change in the diagnostic spectrum in dermatology outpatient applications compared to before COVID‐19. All patients were enrolled from the Department of Dermatology between February 12 and May 8, 2020, the duration of 4 weeks before COVID‐19 and 8 weeks after were analyzed in three parts consisting of 4 weeks. Data obtained from the database such as age, gender, diagnoses were anonymized. Repeated applications with the same diagnosis in 10 days after the first presentation were ignored. Compared to the pre‐outbreak, there was a 3.5‐fold decrease in dermatology applications in the first month after COVID‐19 and an 8.8‐fold in the second month. We found a significant increase in the frequency of diagnoses such as generalized pruritus, pityriasis rosea, alopecia areata, bacterial skin/mucosa diseases, and zona zoster after COVID‐19. The frequency declined in diseases such as verruca vulgaris, hyperpigmentation, skin tag, melanocytic nevus, and seborrheic keratosis/solar lentigo. It has been found that the frequencies of most diseases, including acne (?25% of patients), did not change. We think that many factors, such as affecting the quality of life, risk perception, increased stress burden may cause a change in the diagnostic distribution of the dermatology applications.     

Which dermatology patients attend to Dermatology Outpatient Clinics during the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak in Turkey and what happened to them?

Coronavirus disease, first emerged in Wuhan, rapidly spread all over the world since December 2019. There are concerns about elective dermatology appointments and its results. Herein, we aimed to find out which type of dermatologic patients attended to dermatology outpatient clinic. The patients visiting the clinics for elective dermatologic diseases between March 11 and 18, 2020, were included in this study. Their age, sex, diagnosis of disease, requirement for emergent intervention, and their medical records about COVID‐19 were obtained. There were 390 patients attending to the dermatology outpatient clinic in this period. The most common disease was acne (N: 94, 24%), only 19% of patients need emergent interventions or dose adjustment. There were 40 (10%) patients over the age of 65. After their visits, five patients were diagnosed as COVID‐19 in 2weeks. Dermatologic examinations may be a vector for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) transmission since being closed to the patient. Five of our patients were diagnosed as COVID‐19 after their elective visit to hospital. Since the asymptomatic course of some young patients, most of our patients were not screened for COVID‐19. Our findings support the concerns of elective physician examinations.     

Contributions of dermatologists to COVID‐19 research: A brief systematic review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has been declared a pandemic. We conducted a systematic review to reveal the contribution of dermatologists in COVID‐19 research. Two hundred and ninety‐eight articles were included and classified into cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19, operating experience against COVID‐19, mechanisms and treatment of COVID‐19, disinfection and personal protective equipment (PPE)‐related skin diseases, and other topics. The value of these articles and their impact on clinical impact were discussed and we hope that dermatologists can have a better understanding of these areas from this study.     

Teledermatologic monitoring for chronic cutaneous autoimmune diseases with smartworking during COVID‐19 emergency in a tertiary center in Italy

Because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) emergency, on March 9, 2020 Italy went in lock‐down imposing the closure of non‐urgent outpatient clinics devoted to care of chronic, severe, inflammatory skin diseases that require periodic follow‐up. In this emergency situation, due to the lack of a teledermatology platform and in order not to leave our vulnerable high‐need patients without proper follow‐up, we started a teledermatologic service in smartworking using phone calls and emails. The total number of patients scheduled was 195; in 12 cases, we were not able to talk to the patients. Remote monitoring was performed in 183 patients (126 moderate to severe psoriasis, 10 severe acne, 11 severe atopic dermatitis, 11 hidradenitis suppurativa, 9 blistering autoimmune diseases, and 16 other autoimmune skin diseases). During remote‐visits, several interventions were conducted: triage for COVID‐19 suspected symptoms, email check of clinical pictures and of laboratory examinations, advices for topical and systemic therapy continuation or discontinuation/switch and reschedule of next appointment. Only five patients required personal office visit (2.7%), reducing consistently the number of face‐to face visits. Our real‐life experience shows that remote monitoring was effective in preventing unnecessary worsening of severe chronic skin diseases and poor outcomes due to withdrawal of current therapy.